[antitrust-policy] Comments on the draft

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 16 October 2023 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C64C14CE2F for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWJFyruLXhTh for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f53.google.com (mail-ot1-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB755C14CE2E for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6c4c594c0eeso3222287a34.0 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697474762; x=1698079562; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7xaI2ThiU8jM1FkyhUxy7AFEtsJ4uTn3xnXZ4cPvX/w=; b=sXpjq31pHCkljH/ElKjMpmuhcHjjaTcl9V5/A4HoCc8UePGqJpsISI+e11b+YipchD F/DGyuDm1mZ10u9uwc5VFYrSbVgc4xloSdbsEEe2G9aj6vCssleND7HX5u1wlah5DUWA QcWD9XdJ25tZsc9dBUYtz/ofDkgtmMw6P8iVzP6JG2HX46JVpN6JZydDNAfCRU1QMzQN Ab1aRmvCH5jpMQHEV5r1hkmvyS1YbAHAfDk702XCoSHt3UyeZp7Z1eomieZdREGIfTnH nPCmzig/YENdYtOx6a4qdTWvu6Pu04A3V5yh6+tCb/ca7i5Gc357LolcXhTG4dUYbTs5 5kBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy/orxEE9kwAU+HI7bEi4sMXIP32Qxu2ki6jKTNgY8Oi0eTNKAb dlJil9q9z+s3jBbtbCTFEowD9piobr6aDxIS5yeOlwI4gE4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF8TEEpiq+CDvDoV13icCvD+2ZiMaOF03Nm8ANORh++w/s0aL3WvDJ1Dia3N9iS6YsdF3DVnfuec1DzajsW78s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:3d09:b0:6be:fcc2:a3f5 with SMTP id eu9-20020a0568303d0900b006befcc2a3f5mr35253872otb.37.1697474761929; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:45:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwg7z49u5qoXkqvqOWtdq_t1v=kZSd8scfvqrJ10dB0UYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003338c30607d8242a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/j0YSzwitGYLKJzCbU-XFHNnkvhE>
Subject: [antitrust-policy] Comments on the draft
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/antitrust-policy/>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:46:07 -0000

As one of the people who has been raising this issue, I would like to share
a summary of the specific incident that raised my concern.

The specific issue raised was in a separate standards organization and
involved an alleged threat by an employee of a dominant application
provider to effectively terminate the ability of service providers to
operate if they implemented a particular feature.

That situation has since been remedied and said individual is no longer
employed by said provider, nor do they participate in any standards process
that I am aware of.

I was not present for the meeting in question but I did follow up with
people inside the IETF and the senior management of the company in question.